Thursday, October 24, 2013

Abstract: We have an ethical mandate to rebuild our
world into a way of life that will sustain the human species into the far
distant future. There are a number of
tools that could allow us to design and build a sustainable human ecosystem, a
system that coexists within the planetary biosphere. These tools include the idea of a human
ecosystem – a community ecosystems – a part of the emerging field of ecosystems
science, general systems theory upon which it was founded, and other major
derivatives such as permaculture, pattern language and Fuller’s synergetics.

These tools
are only a beginning. We must systemize
them, create training and educational programs, develop leadership, reorganize
communities and change the laws of the land.
With this article my intent is to lay a cornerstone for this effort.

Introduction

I start with
the premise that a human community is a spontaneous ecosystem just as a forest
or a lake is an ecosystem: It is
composed of a large number of interdependent parts that have organized into a
natural relationship. Between these
parts flow energy (including information) and materiel resources. These systems have a boundary, albeit highly
permeable[1].

Systems
ecology is a formal discipline, or, more correctly, an interdisciplinary field
of ecology. Ecology is the study of the
interrelationship of an organism and its environment. It is a study that includes biology and earth
sciences. Systems ecology defines the
relationships of the many parts of that environment and quantifies the
exchanges between them.

Systems
ecology is a holistic approach that draws heavily from general system theory
and systems analysis. It employs the
concepts of thermodynamics (entropy).
Central to the model is the study of emergent properties. It studies the exchanges of matter and energy
and in this sense has analogies to an economic system. It also includes advocates of deep ecology
where the anthropocentric paradigm is challenged.

The
celebrated pioneer of systems ecology is Howard T. Odum (1924 – 2002). The term “organism in an environment” was
used by Alfred Korzybski, who
for that matter wrote of an early representation of “biosphere,” (circa 1933). Korzybski used the term “organism in the
environment" to develop an early formulation of human neuro-linguistics, or how
the human nervous system interacts with its perceptual environment. Korzybski’s objective was to improve the way
we create an internal map of our experiences and the world in which we
live. Korzybski’s work was the
foundation of general systems theory[3]
and GST the foundation for ecosystems. The
term “ecosystem” was apparently first used by British biologist Arthur Tansley
in 1935. Systems ecology as later
developed is applicable to the human species as an organism and our
relationship with the Earth, or biosphere.

The idea of
the relationship between humans and our world has been popularized by a number
of authors but I will make special note of Theodore Roszak who coined the term
eco-psychology. And, of course, James Lovelock
and others have written extensively about not only humans in the biosphere but
the egregious impact we make; now especially in terms of climate change. It will be argued in this paper that in order
to reestablish the balance between us and our world, we need to have a profound
understanding of our role in the biosphere and that human social organizations
are components of that ecosystem.

In 1953 Howard
T. Odum and his brother Eugene P. Odum[4]
published the first textbook on system ecology:
Fundamentals of Ecology. Between them, and with other collaborators,
they wrote well over a dozen books and hundreds of papers about systems
ecology.

Howard T.[5] approached
systems ecology in terms of the exchange of energy between the components of
the ecosystem. The most important part
of this work, in my opinion, is ecosystem modeling.

Howard T.
thought in technical or mechanical terms: Ecosystems can be modeled and diagramed. He considered them “heat engines,”
governed by the laws of thermodynamics. These
models include feedback and cybernetic linkages. He used Sankey diagrams[6] to
model the exchanges within ecosystems.
He developed an “Energy Systems Language,” a set of symbols that defined
processes within an ecosystem, for his model[7].

Howard T.
distinguished between the energy needed to form the functional relationships in
an organism and the resultant exchange of energy. The implication of this distinction, defined
as Emergy, or “embodied energy,” is that by understanding the energy exchanges
employed in developing the relationships, one has a better understanding of the
potential of the system for evolution.
For human society this is a form of history.

Ecosystems
evolve. They embody both stability and
change. There is a mechanism of
selection. Howard T. worked the
principles of economics into his model and that model has been elaborated in
terms of systems economics[8].

Where Howard
T. was mechanistic in his approach to systems ecology, brother Eugene was
perhaps more naturalistic. Eugene worked
to make biologist more aware of ecology.
Eugene’s teaching about a living Earth has had its own considerable
influence on the environmental movement.

Eugene liked
to use the metaphor of the Apollo 13 mission’s loss of its life support system
to illustrate the imperative of maintaining a sound, bio-regenerative,
self-supporting and self-maintaining, solar-powered, life support system on
planet (spaceship) Earth. As a result of
the impact we have had on our planetary ecosystem we need to think in terms of
damage control. We need to approach this
emergency in terms of resilience (recovery and adaptability). Howard T.’s maximum power principle applies,
which he and Eugene jointly expressed in 1981 as: “The systems most likely to survive in this
competitive world are those that efficiently transform the most energy into
useful work for themselves and surrounding system with which they are linked
for mutual benefit.”

Eugene saw
the decoupling of the human species and nature as highly unnatural and
perilous. He noted that human beings are
not passive components of the ecosystem but actively engaged with it, modifying
it and trying to control it. We have now
come to dominate the planetary ecosystem and have introduced an accelerating
level of disequilibrium. Disequilibrium,
however, pumps the system with energy with the result (or consequence) of a new,
dissipative, structure (Prigogine[9]);
an emergent structure with unanticipated qualities.

Our
ignorance of how this super ecosystems works and our influence on it, is, in a
word, dangerous. We have no way of
knowing the outcome of the dissipative transformation but, without reasonable
understanding of and participation in the process, there is no guarantee that
it will be advantageous to the human species.
Far more likely not to our advantage for the simple reason that the
dynamics of natural selection are quite indifferent to human values systems, be
they humane or predatory. They are,
rather, governed by natural laws and not by ecologically detached and
indifferent human aspirations[10].

An Ecosystem Architecture

One of the
objectives of the Transition Centre initiative is to develop an architecture of
a community ecosystem[11]. From the sustainability literature I pulled
together a list of basic subsystems that are required to maintain a viable
community (below). That does not suggest that a
community build a wall about itself.
Communities are open systems: no
community is 100% self-reliant.
Throughout the entirety of human history (and prehistory) up to the
modern, urban-industrial era, economies have, however, been largely local and
self-reliant. Our present global economy
is far from local. The global economic
and social system is made possible only by massive injections of energy, mostly
derived from fossil fuels, and that system will survive only as long as those
energy and other non-renewable resources last (or remain economically feasible).
No ecosystem can survive if it attempts to live beyond its energy
income.

One of the
chief impediments to our understanding of larger systems is our highly
conditioned, left-brained, linear thinking.
The roots of our disconnection to our ecosystem go back to ancient
times. The ancient Greeks formalized the
mind-body split. Unfortunately some of
our major religious systems, which participate in this split, have come to see
the world as a dark and evil place to be either transcended or dominated. And, too, science has detached itself from
the world it studies.

A number of
writers have theorized that our detachment from the Earth’s ecosystem goes back
to the invention of the alphabet, which enabled widespread literacy, but which
emphasized left-brained, linear and abstract thinking over the right-brained
emotional and pattern recognition driven functions. The rigid separation of reason and emotion by
modern rationalism has seriously aggravated the problem. The belief that we live in the world but not
of it, I considered gravely flawed.

General Systems Theory

For about a
century now a movement has been underway to think more holistically: to bring the parts, including mind and
matter, back together. General systems
theory is one of the results. The term
“general systems theory” was coined by Ludwig von Bertalanffy and the idea
formalized by James Grier Miller, Kenneth Boulding, Ralph Gerard and Anatol
Rapoport (a student of Korzybski) during the mid 1950s. GST has roots in general semantics, operational research,
cybernetics, systems theory, information theory, games theory, etc.; ideas that
have been developed in modern times.

The basic
rule of GST is that nothing exists in isolation. That is an easy thing to say but very hard to
make happen. In this age of experts and
specialists, ideas like holism, interdisciplinary, polymath, Fuller’s comprehensivist,
etc.[12], are
still far from universally accepted. As
indicated, we are rigidly condition against the very idea of thinking outside
our box. And, in fact, it is not easy to
do.

The Regional Survey

One of the
earlier systematic thinkers who saw humans and their world as interrelated was
Patrick Geddes (1854 – 1932). Geddes
started the regional planning movement in Great Britain, worked extensively in
India and other developing countries, then continued to the end of his life to
spread his methods in Europe and America.
He developed the regional survey, an in-depth inventory of the human and
natural regions around a community (then a town or city). This included history and natural history,
soil, weather and climate, sociology, architecture: just about any and everything you can think
of. Trained as a biologist (he was
recognized in a number of other fields including sociology, town planning and
geography), he saw humans and their environment as a living system[13].

This regional,
or “community,” survey idea has been carried on by others, some with and some
without acknowledging Geddes’ influence.
American Lewis Mumford (1895 – 1990), an associate of Geddes, wrote
extensively along this line. A
relatively recent popular and useful guide is Building Communities From The Inside Out: A Path Toward Finding and Mobilizing A
Community’s Assets, by John Kretzmann and John McKnight. But I would recommend learning something
about Geddes before trying more recent adaptations.

Systems Design

The Odum’s
model is a visual, schematic representation of living systems. It draws on the technics of systems
analysis. This process starts with some
type of input and that input is something that has to be able to move. That is, it is or involves a form of
energy. For the Earth’s biosphere, the primary
energy source is the Sun. Solar energy
gets stored in a number of ways. In the
short term it is stored in wind, water potential and heat gradients. A lot of what was once solar energy is now
stored in coal, oil and gas. We are now
burning through millions of years of solar energy in a relative blink of he
eye. Yes, there are other energy sources
at work such as Lunar and solar tidal forces, the Earth’s magnetic field,
chemical reactions, gravity, geothermal, etc.
But what the biosphere lives on is primarily its solar income.

Systems
analysis is the tool used to design computer programs. Alan Turing laid the cornerstone of the
computer industry with the idea that if you could fully describe what is going
on, you could write a program to get a machine to emulate that process. Systems analysis is simply taking the time to
describe what is going on. It is
something we do all the time; from planning a dinner, planting a garden, taking
a trip, or solving a problem at work.
Much of life is just a lot more complex than that. Planning an Olympic event, a moon shot,
developing Google or Facebook, cell phone networks, computer applications;
these are just orders of magnitude more complicate. But those disciplines are now in place. Here is a Wiki definition of the work of software
engineers, the type of really smart people Bill Gates and Steve Jobs found to
change the way we live:

Software
engineering (SE) is the application of a systematic, disciplined,
quantifiable approach to the design, development, operation, and maintenance of
software, and the study of these approaches; that is, the application of
engineering to software.

A natural or
community ecosystem is just a few orders of magnitude more complex yet. But the tools and techniques are the same (at
least for the start). Yes, you need to
add in the fact that we are working with living, thinking, constantly adapting
systems. Bottom line, however, is that
we are, each and every one of us, right in the middle of this game working at
it all the time. We simply need to get a
clear vision of what it is that we want to achieve[14]
and the consequences of our actions.

Here is an
example of such a schematic developed by M. T. Brown, which can be found at A Prosperous Way Down[15],
using Odum’s “energese,” or diagraming symbols.

This is
merely an illustration of the highly involved discipline used in ecosystems
analysis. Let it be said for now that a
community is an ecosystem. In has inputs
of energy, material and information; it has internal processes where these
resources are consumed or transformed; and it has an output, which includes
waste heat energy.

If you
consider a place like New York City, the scale of the human ecosystem is truly mind-boggling. The problem of understanding this ecosystem,
however, is not just complexity; it is a matter of accounting. Corporations, and often families, have
detailed accountings of what they consume, typically in terms of dollars. We need an accounting of actual units of
input, throughput and output. Even where
those statistics are found they do not share a common set of standards and
represent problems in translation into real numbers at the micro-level. Those figures are hard to come by simply
because we are conditioned to think in other terms. And unless and until we learn to think in
terms of what is actually happening, rather than abstract income and expenses,
we will not solve the sustainability problem.

Permaculture

Permaculture
is a central feature of the Transition Towns model[16]. TT founder Rob Hopkins is a permaculture
teacher and innovator. Permaculture
is an ecological design system. Its
objective is perpetual sustainability of the land we produce food and resources
on. It is also used to reclaim and
restore land that has been exhausted or degraded.

Permaculture
was developed by two Australians, Bill Mollison (professor) and David Holmgren
(student and collaborator), who came together to develop and “interdisciplinary
earth science” during the 1970s.

Permaculture
is the application of design to agriculture and is based on scientific
principles and research. Those
principles are, however, drawn from the experience of living on and with the
land, of becoming part of the ecosystem rather than its master.

Permaculture
is founded on a system of twelve principles, or thinking tools[17]:

1.Observe and interact

2.Catch and store energy

3.Obtain a yield

4.Apply self-regulation and accept feedback

5.Use and value renewable resources and
services

6.Produce no waste

7.Design from patterns to details

8.Integrate rather than segregate

9.Use small and slow solutions

10.Use
and value diversity

11.Use
edges and value the marginal

12.Creatively
use and respond to change

Another way
of looking at this is David Holmgren’s “Permaculture Flower” of the seven
domains of permaculture action[18].

It starts
with ethics, human survivability, and the twelve principles then expands outwardly
into the seven domains[19].

As can be
seen from this model, it is systematic, it is comprehensive, and it is a
discipline. It is far, far more than
gardening.

Pattern
Language

An integral
part of this model involves the pattern language system developed by architect
Christopher Alexander. A pattern is
defined as something that occurs over and over.
This approach begins with patterns that define places where people
live. Alexander collected hundreds of
these patterns and organized them.
Starting with a region, within the region is a distribution of towns,
agriculture, roads, the countryside, etc.
Within the towns will be markets, places people live, traffic
intersections, children, families, shops, food stands, etc. The list continues down to very fine detail.

The
methodology is at the heart of pattern language. It starts with a picture, followed by an
introductory paragraph, a definition of the problem in a few sentences, the
body of the problem which provides the detail and the array of ways the pattern
can be manifest, then the solution to the problem which establishes the
relationship of the various elements, physical, social, etc., that are required
to make the pattern happen. The solution
is stated as a set of instruction, which includes a diagram. Within each pattern are the smaller patterns (what
Arthur Koestler called holons, or systems within systems) that are required to
complete the functioning entity.

Pattern language
assumes that the way humans build their environment is organic. Our social and cultural patterns have evolved
over thousands of years. Architecture is
a study of how those patterns form and work.
In master architect Lewis Sullivan’s words: “Form follows function.”

This organic
pattern comes out of the way people interact, or participate in communal
activity. It takes a long time for these
patterns to emerge and stabilize. They
become the local culture. A pattern, I
would like to add, from a systems ecology perspective, is not only structure
but a flow of energy; a movement of energy, like within a living cell or the
human body, that assembles matter into a persistent pattern, a structural
integrity, which persist even when the matter in the pattern is constantly
replaced[20].

The pattern
language model was used to develop The
Transition Companion[21].

Synergetics

R. Buckminster
(Bucky) Fuller, inventor of the geodesic dome, was ecological design science
exemplified. The genesis of Fuller’s life
work was his extreme nearsightedness.
Before he got his first eyeglasses as a child, he conceived of the world
in terms of triangles rather than the box-like rooms we normally perceive. He spent a lot of his life developing a model
of the universe based not on right angles (900) but on the 600
angles of the triangle. Triangles are
natures preferred way of organizing matter.
Triangles have tremendous structural integrity, which is to say that
they don’t readily collapse. A square
(or rectangle), like a wall of a building, which defines the space we are
conditioned to understanding, must be diagonally (triangle) braced or it will collapse.

Fuller
translated this thinking not only into the technology of the geodesic dome[22]
but a geometry of thinking he called synergetics[23]. Synergetics is based on the structure of the
tetrahedron, a solid constructed formed by four triangles. This figure represents a minimum system: It has an inside (the system) and an outside
(the environment). It requires four
components (each vertex of the figure), each of which is connected to all the
others.

Let me
describe how this works. Start with one
corner, one idea. Mathematically it is a
point. In essence a point has no length,
width or depth. Connect that point to
another and you achieve the dimension of length. Connect those two points to a third, in the
form of a triangle, and you have two dimensions and a surface. Connect those three points to a fourth and
you achieve a “solid,” a three dimensional figure. This is a minimal system: It has an “inside” and an “outside.”

Between each
pair of points is a line of force and the energy along this line goes in both
directions: two degrees of freedom. Given that there are six lines, that makes
twelve degrees of freedom. Given that
there is movement and "non-simultanity," you also have “time.”

The idea of permutations also applies. Each additional point (”N”) roughly (not
exactly, the simple formula is (N2-N)/2) doubles the number
connections. By adding just one
additional point the number of connections goes from six to ten and the degrees
of freedom from twelve to twenty. Unlike
the song in which the knee bone is connected t the hipbone, this is not a
linear model[24]. In my meta-taxonomy of 22 basic human needs,
there are, for example, 231 connections between these components; and that
doesn’t get down to the detail within each.
Daunting yes, but so too was the computer and software revolution, which
has now settled into a routine industry.
Today that field has evolved into social network architecture technology,
which is a definite step in the direction of human systems ecology.

Fuller’s book on Synergetics,
and its sequel, Synergetics 2,
represents a daunting intellectual exercise suitable for those who love
mathematical games[25]. A far more readable account of the system can
be found in Fuller’s synergetic collaborator, E. J. Applewhite’s Cosmic Fishing. This book provides a fabulous insight into
the mind and character of Bucky Fuller.
Fuller, while challenging, was one of the twentieth century’s greatest
sustainability thinkers. He left a
fabulous legacy of environmental design science.

Korzybski
and General Semantics

Alfred Korzybski was a Polish chemical engineer and
mathematician (also an accomplished linguist) who settled in the US following
World War I and begin an in-depth exploration into how to use advancing scientific
knowledge to improve human mental health and communication. In 1933 he published Science and Sanity and the book was judged one of the
most influential of its time. Korzybski
closely studied how humans transform experience into language and how we use
language in ways that distort reality.
His objective was to develop a method for forming accurate internal
representations of the world brought to us by our senses and a discipline of
communications that allows us to more accurately exchange information about the
world as it really is. His intention was
to thereby reduce conflict by the process of bringing us into common agreement
about what we know about our world. That
is, if we each see it as it really is we would have the basis of agreement and
cooperation.

He was one of the first to not only bridge the gaps
between the sciences but to extend his holistic system to the social
science. He saw humans as an integral
part of the surrounding environment: no
division between mind and body. He saw
science as an integral system of knowledge, not a lot of specialized
subjects. He believed that when we are
well-informed about the world and events around us, and he believed all
ordinary people could do so, we were part of it and part of the society of
shared experience with all other human beings.

Korzybski also influenced the emergence of holistic,
humanistic psychology.

Ralph
Borsodi and the School of Living

Ralph Borsodi is remembered as the father of the
back-to-the-land movement but he is far more important for his development of the central
institution of a sustainable, agrarian community: The School of Living. Borsodi’s School of Living was developed during the crises of the middle of the last century (The Great Depression and World War II). The SoL provides the knowledge, skills and
mental preparation needed to form and maintain its community. In a series of books Borsodi described a program
for forming the “quality” human being; that is the full potential of each
member of the community. These books
represent a pioneering effort to design a holistic human learning program[26].

A First Synthesis

If we are going to do anything about creating a
sustainability world, and of adapting to the profound changes to come, we have
to move from theory to practice. So let
me start with a brief summary:

A human community is an ecosystem. It is an integral part of the Earth’s
biosphere. Like all ecosystems it is an
unimaginably complex organization. It is
based not only on the laws of physics and biological systems but includes the
active participation of human intelligence, a force that is capable of
dramatically transforming the environment.
Those qualities that define our species have initiated a process that
has, in this modern, energy-driven, age, begun to cause environmental
consequences that imperil the human future.

This raises the question of human nature. Like it or not, when we say that humans are
part of the biosphere, we err in thinking that we are not, or should not be, a
commanding presence. We are, quite
literally, the universe becoming aware of itself. Our mistake is that, like a pampered,
narcissistic brat, we have chosen to break the laws of the system that gave us
life and consciousness. There are inescapable
consequences. Nature designed us to
solve problems, not create them.

Perhaps it is more than coincidence that two sons of
Howard W. Odum, who gave us an early view of organic human community, produced a
biologically-based science of ecosystems.
This science validates and provides tools for the study of community
ecology. The science of ecosystems tends
to reside in academia as a specialized subject that is relatively inaccessible
to those of us on the outside.
Permaculture, however, is a practical application of ecosystems that can
be learned and applied by anyone

The study of ecosystems is not only about understanding
but also engagement; something called design.
In order to live appropriately on this Good Earth, we need to use the
qualities we so uniquely represent to become not the adversary to but an
active, integral part of an incredible life-system. Permaculture is a great place to start.

The ethos of ecosystem management is that we have to
first, and foremost, survive. Like it or
not, for all our prowess, nature selects those species that have the greatest
capacity to adapt. To use another
metaphor, we are like a child with a box of matches and unless we grow up and
learn to be responsible very quickly, we are going to burn our house down, so
to speak.

We live in a Yin-Wang universe. It is not a universe of opposites but rather
of compliments. The modern era has given
us not only the means to burn the house down but, if we can grow up a little,
to delve into the essence that is our potential as a co-creator on our world.

The social-Darwinism that has driven so much of human
predatory practices is essentially wrong in emphasizing competition. An ecosystem is founded on the principle of
cooperation. The strong, in fact, do not
survive well. The successor of T-Rex is
the bird singing on the branch outside of my window.

In this essay I have outlined some of the more promising
subjects that give us the tools to realize who and what we really are. The twenty-first century will be
transformative but in terms very different from that of the last century. It will likely be tragic. We have already wasted far too much
time preparing our adaptation. We need to grow up and get serious
without delay.

With these tools we have the means, if not yet the will,
to create a perpetually sustainable world.
The sustainability movement, as I said, is by far the largest in the
history of the planet. It is as yet
largely undefined. It lacks
coherence. It must, if it is to affect
the course of history, coalesce around a new ethos and develop the tools and
leadership needed to turn it from mob to movement. That will happen at the local, community,
level.

There are a
lot of pieces to this puzzle and our task is, first to get them on the same
table, connected and interacting.

The Fifth
Element

Before the
modern age our ancestors saw the universe as composed of four elements: Earth, Air, Fire and Water. These represent qualities of the material
world: hot, cold, wet, dry. There was always a sense that there was a
fifth element. The ancients believed
there was something even more fundamental, called “aether,” out of which the
four elements formed. About a century
ago science searched for and failed to find this fifth element. What was found is a fundamental constant in
the universe: the speed of light. From that discovery Einstein developed his
famous E=mc2, an equation that defines the relationship between
matter and energy and the nature of space and time; another foursome. In this new, scientifically defined universe,
there are still only four fundamental forces:
gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. The ultimate goal of physical science today is
to find the fundamental particle and the fundamental force that is at the root
our material existence. Our DNA is also
composed of just four “letters.” Bottom
line is that there is a fundamental simplicity and elegance to nature and we
need to learn from this.

Science has
given us the tools and produced the knowledge to allow us to reach a whole new
and far more practical understanding of the world we live in. It has taught us that the universe is more
marvelous and more mysterious that even the ancients imagined. But it is we human beings who are aware of,
just barely aware of, how this universe works and our role in it.

Many a deep
thinker has spent sleepless nights wondering if the fifth element is the
quality we human beings manifest:
consciousness.

The
knowledge and skills we have accumulated are but a small part of who and what
we are. They have to be applied. And for these applications to be successful
adaptations to the demands of life, they have to be successful, that is
pro-survival.

Central to
the idea of ecosystems is that the things we do have to be done not in
isolation but as functional parts of a whole system, or at least as subsystems
of the whole, and within the boundaries of which we have some comprehension of
the forces working in our lives, which is by definition the community where we
live.

Each part,
and what it does, has a positive potential effect if and only if it
compliments the other parts and fills a need.
There must, first, be an existing need:
a receptor. If a surplus, for
example, is not effectively stored it can become an impediment to the free
function of a system. If a part does not
fit it may (likely will) produce disharmony or conflict.

Unlike human
systems, biological ecosystems are not conscious. They achieve balance and integration by trial
and error; lots of error.

Humans are
self-conscious and we act deliberately, for the better or the worse.

In the past,
human communities also grew organically, spontaneously, by trail and error, by
adapting. Civic, religious and
educational institutions were formed for the purpose of maintaining social order –
the quality in a biological system we would call homoeostasis. The rapid rate of change and innovation of
the modern age has disrupted thousands of years of social adaptation. Our best attempts to force social adaptation
have only distorted and fragmented these institutions. The most powerful of these institutions now
exist primary for their own self-preservation:
They have formed virtually impermeable boundaries. They have become highly dysfunctional. Examples of this dysfunction are seen every
day in the news. The poster child at
this writing is the US Congress. Closed systems inevitably fail.

This modern
age, while bringing us many good and useful things, has dramatically changed
our relationship to the world we live in.
Rather than live as a part of the biosphere, we have chosen to exploit
it, and undeterred in our pursuit of growth and material comfort, we are
accelerating the disequilibrium in the biosphere. Why are we constantly surprised that there
are consequences?

Climate
change is a major focus of the environmental movement: trying to fix it. But climate change is an effect, not a
cause. We are not, it becomes
increasingly evident, going to fix climate change. We have to adapt. Yet we still hope the adaptation will be a
Star Trek future: continued mastery of,
exploitation of, nature; a perpetual “growth” economy. As grand as the theme is, “to go where no one
has gone before,” the metaphor is one simply of expanding our dominion of the
universe. Of course that gets the crew
into terribly dangerous situations.

The lesson
we gain from the Star Trek dramas is that the human element, a deep and
fundamental set of human values, is what saves the day. We see in these episodes an ethically based
action that has become rare in our age.

If we think
the universe is hostile and indifferent, that is because we are in opposition
to it. The universe
does not have value judgments. We do.

Consider: We are that creation of life that can conceive
what we call the higher, or spiritual, values, and only we can have these
values; in the form of an “enlightened” behavior within the fabric of life. Are these values detached and abstract, even other-worldly,
or are they consistent with life in the biosphere?

Putting it Together

We start with the reality that human society has pushed
the biosphere into a far from equilibrium state and this will have
consequent. Our petro-industrial
civilization is not sustainable.

The second term in our argument is the premise that a
community is an ecosystem.

Odum and Odum and others gave us a science for
understanding ecosystems. It is founded on
biological science.

This science draws on general systems theory and a range
of linked disciplines related to process and communication. It is a holistic method

Permaculture is a practical application of this approach.

Other disciplines I use to support this model
include: Alexander’s pattern language,
Fuller’s synergetics, Korzybski’s general semantics and Borsodi’s School of Living[27].

There is a vast field ripe for a focused discipline about
local, national and planetary sustainability (and, because we can only begin to
comprehend problems at this level, it all starts locally).

Transition Towns was designed to mobilize a community to
organize itself to become fully sustainable.
This community has to be adaptable.
The term used by the TT movement is “resilience.” It is linked to the principles of
permaculture and systems ecology.

If we are serious about creating an effective adaptive system our objective is to organize this discipline, set up (practical, community-based) training programs, and programs to train “leaders[28]” in both management of sustainability efforts and related community organization.

The transitional, self-reliant, sustainable community and the comprehensive learning institution that serve it are the objectives Transition Centre seeks to clarify and impliment.

Transitional
Mapping

Transition Town State College (TTSC) started an
eco-community project it calls “Mapping.”

2.A community is an ecosystem, just like a forest
or lake. It consists of a large number
of spontaneously interdependent parts that make it a living entity.

3.We form our eco-community not by will but by discovery
of natural relationships between its parts.

The purpose
of this enterprise is to build a virtual organization within the community that
collectively seeks to merge resources for the common goal of achieving a
sustainable future.

As
mentioned, in Blessed Unrest, Paul
Hawken reported that the largest movement on the planet is the sustainability
movement. It has millions of followers
and tens of thousands of organizations all over the world. It is, I must stress, essentially unorganized
and incoherent. It is clearly time,
there is a clear need, to take this movement to the next level.

In The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell
identified three types of players in the process of change: People who came up with great ideas, people
good at selling ideas (persuasion) and people who connect. The mapping project focus is on people and
organizations that connect. The purpose
of making the connections, however, is to mobilize collective action.

Human beings
are social animals; by far and away the most sophisticated social species. Our very identity as human beings is defined
by our relationship with other people. The ideal form of human association is the
community. A community is by definition
a group of people who share the same values and worldview and who work for
their mutual benefit.

I want to
take this idea a step further: I cannot
overstress the idea that human communities are ecosystems. This is more than metaphor; it is a
fact. We are organized like connected
dots on a map but that is only where it starts.
There is an emerging field of social networking analysis that attempts
to give us a visual image of how we are connected. As mentioned, there is a lot of new stuff
coming out on social networking and the dynamic forms of cooperative enterprise
that defines the modern organization.
That so much effort is going into this area is indicative of the innate
need for greater connectedness.

But back to
the dots. All too often, as I said,
there is not even a comprehensive list of sustainability organizations. Where such directories exist, they are an
invaluable resource. A very worthwhile
project, if you don’t have it already, is to create one[29]. Then what?
You’ve got to connect the dots, get the social networking architecture
in place. Then you need to do something
else and that is to figure out what happens along those connectors.

It’s not
really hard work. It is something we all
naturally do. It just calls for a bit
more intention, a goal to connect, and the discipline to write it down and
think about it. There is a critical
threshold between casual and committed.

In an
ecosystem energy flows between the connections.
That is what makes it an ecosystem.
Not just a bunch of diverse parts, not just the connections between
them, but, I must stress, what happens along all those connections.

The
objective of transition mapping is to develop an ecosystem model of the
sustainability groups within a “community” and how they relate to each other.

The Transition Town State College Map

Centre
County, Pennsylvania, has a resident population of just over 150,000. About half live in and around State College[30]. We are also the home of Penn State and over
40,000 students. We founded a Transition
Town here in 2010. We’ve done a lot of
the usual things a Transition Initiative does with typical mixed results. We now have a project I consider to be part
of, shall I use the term, the new paradigm.
We call it the Mapping Project.
It is about awakening our community ecosystem.

How many
sustainability organizations and groups and activities do you have in your
community? Transition Town State College
actually embraces about a dozen townships and, of course, the University. At last count, and the list[31]
is growing, there are over 250 local organizations with sustainability on their
agenda in our area[32]. (We had been guessing far less than half that
number.) They range from conservation
and environmental groups, such as ClearWater Conservancy, chapters of the
Sierra Club, National Wildlife Federation and Trout Unlimited, to local sustainable
agriculture (including PASA) to community gardens to Penn State student
organizations, etc. There are a number
of government and business organizations getting on the list. The recently formed Penn State Sustainability
Institute[33]
has added a virtual new dimension to the local sustainability network.

These groups
perform all sorts of functions. This is
where I find the gemstone metaphor suggestive:
they are, potentially, like the facets on a great diamond. The splendor of a diamond is how all the
facets work together to gather and focus the light. It is something we all know as great beauty.

Several
efforts were made locally to draw groups into collaborative activity. One series of such activities included two
TTSC lead Marcellus Shale Forums followed by a Public Issues, day-long, forum
in which TTSC was represented as a planner (late 2011 to April 2012). These meetings brought a great many people
together, from both sides of the issue, to explore and learn.

In late 2011
a small group was formed by a local green mayor, Elizabeth Goreham, composed of
nearly a dozen organizations that set out to develop a portal of sustainability
organizations[34]. That portal was realized by one of the
partners of this group, New Leaf Initiative, about a year later[35].

In an effort
to draw more groups together TTSC co-sponsored a potluck and community meeting
with a local green church (Grace Lutheran) that drew nearly 70 people
representing 25 organizations (January 2013). Building on this experience TTSC held a
workshop in which three teams created maps of their perception of how a list of 60 local organizations fit together.

Members of
the TTSC core group have conducted face-to-face surveys with a number of
sustainability organizations to both gather information and make connections.
We are doing that in part for the purpose of letting folks know that they are part of a
larger community ecosystem. We are just
getting started but the promise of this project already appears very large.

Community Ecosystem Mapping
(CEM)

Out of this effort evolved Community Ecosystem Mapping
(CEM). This model is drawing on emerging
technology to both enhance understanding of community ecosystems and uses
ecosystems to extend the concept of social networking to creating an
interactive model of our community sustainability enterprise.

As suggested, a
community is an ecosystem: an evolved,
complex set of highly interrelated processes.
Let’s looks at a highly simplified model of a community ecosystem. The basic functions of this model are: Inputs, Throughputs and Outputs.

Inputs, for a human community, consist of things like
food, water, energy, goods, services and information. The community itself consists of a group of people
who occupy an identifiable place, with boundaries that are usually defined as
political entities[36].

In the CEM model, sustainability is not at the
intersection of events but the show itself, so to speak. Human society is, and should be considered as,
a subsystem within the environment.
Human beings, we tend to forget, are an intricate part of the
biosphere. The economy is a subsystem of
society and the environment.

Intersection Model of Sustainability

Holistic Model of Sustainability

The Transition Centre list of twenty-two basic human needs
was drawn from the literature of sustainability, and as such is a workable list
of functions within the community. These
both define inputs and processes within the boundaries of the “community:”

1.FOOD

2.WATER

3.SHELTER

4.CLOTHING

5.ENERGY

6.WASTE MANAGEMENT

7.ECONOMY/Services and Made Goods

8.COMMUNITY/SOCIETY

9.FAMILY

10.EDUCATION

11.LITERATURE, ART AND RECREATION

12.HEALTH CARE

13.TRANSPORTATION

14.COMMUNICATIONS

15.GOVERNANCE

16.SECURITY (PUBLIC SAFETY)

17.ENVIRONMENT/ECOLOGY

18.HISTORY: SOCIAL AND
NATURAL

19.ARTS, ENTERTAINMENT AND COMMUNICATION

20.SOCIAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL ADJUSTMENT

21.OLD AGE SECURITY

22.SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY

A sustainable and self-sufficient community would provide
most of these needs itself. There is no
such thing, however, as a totally self-sufficient community in
the developed world. Indeed, much of the
world is part of a global marketplace.
That marketplace is defined by our current patterns of consumption. The bottom line, however, is that this
lifestyle is not sustainable. Our first
priority, therefore, is to define not only what is being consumed within the
boundaries of our community but what would be necessary to support an
acceptable quality of life. Then comes
the question of how we can meet a growing share of these needs from local
resources in a way that insures perpetual sustainability for our
community. For that to happen will
require a whole and entirely different economic model.

The assumption that we cannot transform the economy is
false. The economy is constantly
transforming itself and those transformations have accelerated over just the
past few generations. Within living
memory we have gone from an agrarian economy to an industrial economy – several
industrial economies, in fact – to a post-industrial economy. Each stage of industrial development has had
a primary energy source and each of these was succeeded by another that defined
the economy it supports. Information
technology now has and continues to dramatically transform human social
organization.

Every successful business enterprise is an exercise in
economic transformation. The Great
Recession of 2008 was largely the result of economic innovations that simply
did not work and we are clearly in need of an economic system that does
work. The idea of sustainability demands
a dramatic transformation of the economy.
Community Ecosystem Mapping seeks to define and reestablish a natural
flow of exchange and that, by definition, is an economic model. We have to transition the current model
into a natural model.

The scope of this problem is analogous to setting up a
human colony on another world. Indeed,
it is virtually the same problem. To do
so would require an exacting catalog of what is necessary to sustain life and
society. An attempt to explore this
concept was undertaken in the Biosphere II project[37].

Food Systems

According to the USDA, the average American requires about
a ton of food per year. That figure is decidedly
skewed as it includes the ingredients of highly processed foods and does not
include the acreage needed to grow feed for meat and dairy products. Ralph Borsodi, founder of the School of Living,
a cost accountant by profession who carefully studied the economics of
self-reliance, estimated that a family of five could live on 2 ½ tons of food
per year plus meat and dairy products.
He also demonstrated that this amount of food, including dairy products,
could be grown by the family on three acres of land[38].
Virtually all of our food can be grown in the US; and what can’t be grown in
this climate is not essential for a healthy and agreeable diet.

Borsodi’s School of Living model is an economy of
self-reliant homesteaders. They grow
most of what they need and live in a community that cooperates for the
collective welfare – which is the way we lived until modern times. If we choose a society with a higher degree
of division of labor, where local small-scale farmers (roughly 80 acres) grow
the food, we have a different but potentially manageable business model. I want to stay with this “Plan B” for a bit.

Small-scale local farming is based on the assumption that
the great majority of food products are in fact raised within a matter of an
hour or less transportation from a town or city. To a limited extent, this model is already in
place. This is a “farm to table” model
in which food is grown and sold directly within the local market[39].

Growing food locally is only part of the model. It seems that the most pressing barrier is
actually the market where the farmers sell their foods locally. While the scale of the local food model has
grown dramatically over the last decade or so, it is still a highly restricted
one. The idea of even doubling it (to
about one percent) has proven daunting; let alone scaling up to ten, twenty and
progressively higher shares of the local market. As is often the case, this is a consequence
of inadequate cooperative enterprise. It
is not easy to do. It requires a
passionate will and hard work to accomplish.
But it starts with coalescing interested parties and bringing them into
alignment.

Finding land, finance, skilled workers, tools and
equipment and other means to put the land into production is a significant undertaking. There are two other parts of this model. First is a complex supply chain needed to provide
the tools and resources to produce food.
Second is a distribution, processing, and storage chain that follows
production. Both of these markets can be localized and
made part of the community economy. It
is, in short, not just the farms but the two wings of this model that need to
be and can be developed. This local food
sector would generate a lot of jobs and circulate a lot of wealth within the
community.

While there is a lot of literature about making us a
nation of farmers, and academic studies about improving the food system, I have
yet to see a comprehensive model for doing that.
Yes, there are some wonderful examples of expanding local food
consumption. I have written about some
of them in “Local Food Revolution[40]”. These are, however, the “finger pointing to
the Moon.” Indeed, the scope of the
project would not be unlike the effort that went into the Apollo missions. But it can and must be accomplished: Local food is the entry to creating a
sustainable community and economy. It is
also about the only way to start it[41].

The Whole Community

Likewise for each of the other 21 basic needs; each of
which is a definable subsystem of the sustainable community. If you can do local foods, you can do them
all. In fact, if you achieve local food
self-sufficiency, all the rest will follow.

Community Ecosystem mapping is showing considerable
promise for extending ecosystems science into the realm of human
community. The model promises to yield a
virtual organizational framework through the process of identifying, linking
and defining the relationship between local sustainability organizations. It also holds the promise of defining
organization by discovery rather than imposition. It creates an enhanced consciousness of not
only the natural environment but the social environment as well.

The most pressing risk today is not climate change but
resource scarcity. Manic consumption of
resources is indeed causing climate change and other environmental stresses but
climate change is the effect, not the cause.
Climate change is no longer something that will happen in the future; it
is hurting us now. The effects of
climate change, however, will be of secondary importance to that of rapidly
diminishing nonrenewable resources over the next few decades. There may be a Star Trek future but it is a
high-risk dream. Betting everything on
technological progress is not prudent.
For now population is still accelerating and developing countries are
working hard to get their share of the pie.
Resource depletion has an immediate and evolving economic impact. Community Ecosystem Mapping offers the
potential of understanding the design of a truly sustainable economy and such
an economy, inevitably, is what we will have whether by design or by failure to
do so.

The model is rapidly evolving and will be reported in
future posts.

[1] A
boundary that has been increasingly dissolved by globalization and human
migration between places.

[4] Their father, Howard W. Odum was a renowned
sociologist who applied the principles of holism to his work and developed
models of regional cultures, particularly southern agrarianism, that have
informed thinking about agrarian reengagement for decades. Howard W., in son Eugene’s words encouraged
him to: "seek more harmonious
relationships between man and nature."

[5] I
keep the “T.” in the name to distinguish him from his renowned father.

[10]
It is a reasonable assumption that some human social system will successfully
adapt to whatever conditions emerge; but that is not to say that all or even a
majority will do so.

[11]
An outline of the approach and the twenty-two basic human needs can be found on
the home page at www.transitioncentre.org
and will be further explicated in my upcoming Community, Economy and Energy.

[12] A. E. van Vogt coined the
term Nexialism to give a literary framework to the systems thinking of Alfred
Korzybski: "Nexialism is the
science of joining in an orderly fashion the knowledge of one field of learning
with that of other fields. It provides
techniques for speeding up the processes of absorbing knowledge and of using
effectively what has been learned."